# C_2019035EN.01002901.xml

| 28.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/29

---

Action brought on 17 November 2018 — DEI v Commission

(Case T-694/18)

(2019/C 35/35)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, A. Iliadou and C. Synodinos, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 30 July 2018 of the European Commission (C(2018) 4947 final in Case SA.50152) to the extent that the Commission decides not to raise objections to the aid scheme under the new Transitory Flexibility Remuneration Mechanism (‘the new TFRM’) which was notified by Greece, based on the conclusion that that scheme is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 30 July 2018 of the European Commission (C(2018) 4947 final in Case SA.50152) to the extent that the Commission decides not to raise objections to the aid scheme under the new Transitory Flexibility Remuneration Mechanism (‘the new TFRM’) which was notified by Greece, based on the conclusion that that scheme is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, and

| — | order the European Commission to pay DEI’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay DEI’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | According to the first plea in law, the Contested Decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of the law and of the facts and a failure to comply with essential procedural requirements with respect to the interpretation and application of Article 108(2) TFEU, to the extent that the Commission did not initiate the formal investigation procedure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

According to the first plea in law, the Contested Decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of the law and of the facts and a failure to comply with essential procedural requirements with respect to the interpretation and application of Article 108(2) TFEU, to the extent that the Commission did not initiate the formal investigation procedure.

| 2. | According to the second plea in law, the Contested Decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of the law and of the facts, with respect to the judgment that the new Transitory Flexibility Remuneration Mechanism satisfies the criteria of the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy (2014-2020) for the assessment of the compatibility of the aid with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and in particular the criteria of necessity, proportionality, appropriateness, incentive effect and avoidance of undue negative effects on competition. |
| --- | --- |

2.

According to the second plea in law, the Contested Decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of the law and of the facts, with respect to the judgment that the new Transitory Flexibility Remuneration Mechanism satisfies the criteria of the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy (2014-2020) for the assessment of the compatibility of the aid with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and in particular the criteria of necessity, proportionality, appropriateness, incentive effect and avoidance of undue negative effects on competition.

---